Women and Work
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08462, in the name of Angela Constance, on women and work.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Mary Lily Walker, who was a native of Dundee. The city is, understandably, celebrating the life of that remarkable woman, who introduced ground-breaking social and healthcare reform. One hundred years on, we have seen a huge change in the lives of working women. Women now work in every sector in Scotland—often at the top of their profession—or run their own businesses, and yet they still face barriers to and at work.
At last year’s women’s employment summit, which was held in partnership with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, delegates discussed the many barriers that women can face in the labour market. Since March this year, I have had support in monitoring progress since the summit from the strategic advisory group on women and work. I am grateful to the group for its passionate yet well-informed input to our wide-ranging mission. In addressing Parliament today, I hope that I am adequately reflecting its views and concerns.
Since the summit, we have had the timely report from the Equal Opportunities Committee on its inquiry into women and work, which considered childcare, occupational segregation and flexible working. However, although significant challenges remain for today’s women, I stress that we are not here to debate bad news.
I invite members to consider the wider picture. Women are doing well in the labour market. The latest statistics show that the female employment rate is 69.5 per cent in Scotland, which is an increase of 3.2 per cent in the past year. Over the year, the number of women in employment in Scotland has risen by 54,000, and female underemployment has also decreased by 2.9 per cent over the past year.
However, we know that problems still exist, and we need to find ways within our powers to tackle them. The cost and availability of childcare is often cited as the key problem for working parents and women in particular. That is why we are legislating now, via the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, to increase the level of funded early learning and childcare from 475 hours to 600 hours per year for three and four-year-olds and, from 2014, for the most vulnerable two-year-olds.
Our white paper, “Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland”, which was published last week, set out our commitment, in an independent Scotland, to work towards a childcare system in which all children from age one to starting school would be entitled to 1,140 hours of childcare and early learning a year, which equates broadly to 30 hours a week, 38 weeks per year. That would be truly transformational and would enable more women to make greater choices about their working lives. In developing that commitment the Scottish Government is indebted to Professor Ailsa McKay, whose input has been invaluable, and I thank her for that.
Among the other topics that were discussed at the summit, occupational segregation is one of the most complex and challenging, but we must challenge it for the sake of our economy and of equality, including equal pay. Because the issues are so broad, the first recommendation from the summit on which we acted was the re-establishment of the Government’s cross-directorate working group. In addition to Scottish Government officials, the group calls on the expertise of our external partners in the STUC, Napier’s Scottish resource centre for women in science, engineering and technology, the close the gap project and the men in childcare initiative.
The group will oversee the work to progress the women’s employment summit recommendations, alongside the recommendations that the Royal Society of Edinburgh made in its report, “Tapping all our Talents: Women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics—a strategy for Scotland”
One action that is already under way is the implementation of careerwise, which is a £250,000 fund to encourage girls and young women to consider careers in science, engineering and technology. Careerwise Scotland is being implemented by the Scottish resource centre. It will work collaboratively with employers, schools, colleges, universities and Skills Development Scotland to encourage and support young women into science, technology, engineering and maths learning and jobs.
It is worth mentioning that earlier this month, the Prospect union launched the Prospect pledge to encourage the Government and employers to do more to help women into STEM jobs. I assure Parliament that I fully support that ambition. Early next year, I will hold an event with the information technology industry with an emphasis on how to attract young women into the sector, which I hope will also contribute to that work.
On the modern apprenticeship programme and vocational education training, Skills Development Scotland is pursuing a range of activities including working with Scottish union learning to better target underrepresented groups in the apprenticeship programme, be that young women, members of the black and minority ethnic community or people with a disability. As members all know, we await the final report from the Wood commission.
However, we need to be clear that addressing occupational segregation is not just about getting more women into STEM jobs. Women are often drawn to particular sectors and types of jobs. It is crucial that we properly value all the work that women do—paid and unpaid—which contributes so much to Scottish society and to the Scottish economy.
Another topic of discussion at the summit was access to training for women of all ages. I recognise that women will need to access training at different stages of their lives and that those who are returning to the labour market may need to refresh existing skills or retrain in a new area.
I agree entirely with what the minister has said. I wonder therefore whether she regrets cutting 77,000 places for women in her colleges.
The facts of the matter are that women are well represented as learners within colleges—53 per cent of learners are indeed women and women make up 51.5 per cent of the population. Given what we know about the barriers to women participating in the labour market, it is absolutely crucial that women get access to learning that is economically relevant and which will give them access to well-paid and fruitful careers.
On another matter, I have asked officials to identify any barriers to training that women face and to explore how those can be addressed in full. As part of that work, I am pleased to advise the Parliament that through the energy skills challenge fund, OPITO—the oil and gas skills body—and Fife College are specifically targeting women for courses that are due to commence in January 2014. The Scottish Government will pilot an offer of childcare support for those courses.
I welcome the minister asking officials to look into some background. Are the minister’s officials also looking into why the average spend per male apprentice is 53 per cent more than the average spend per female apprentice?
Absolutely. That issue has been debated and discussed within the chamber and also within the strategic group on women and work and amongst the occupational segregation group.
We know that men are more likely to be in apprenticeship frameworks such as construction and engineering, which take longer to complete and are often at a higher level. However, as I said earlier, we do indeed want women to have access to opportunities in a variety of sectors, including those sectors in which women are currently underrepresented—sectors that can lead women to long careers and careers that will help to address equal pay issues, for example.
As regards women in enterprise, in Scotland only 21 per cent of small to medium-sized enterprise employers are women led. Following last year’s summit, we facilitated a series of workshops, which were chaired by Professor Sara Carter of the University of Strathclyde and Jackie Brierton of Women’s Enterprise Scotland.
A draft framework for action by the Scottish Government and its partners has been produced and we anticipate that it will be completed by the end of the year. Figures that Sara Carter has provided show that, if women in Scotland were to start businesses at the same rate as men, economic growth could be more than 5 per cent. That demonstrates the importance of addressing the enterprise gap.
The challenges for women in the workplace are many and varied. In the short time available, I have not been able to cover all the work that is under way by the Scottish Government and our partners. I hope that my colleague Shona Robison will address in her concluding remarks some of the wider equality issues and issues to do with women’s participation on boards and in broader public and corporate life. I have not had time to touch on the excellent research and analysis that has been led by Professor Patricia Findlay, but there are good papers on the employability in Scotland website.
To end on a personal note, I assure Parliament that, within the scope of the powers that we currently have, we are taking steps across all areas of Government to tackle the barriers to employment or progression that women face. I for one certainly want to do more. One of the many reasons why I want to bring powers home to this Parliament is so that we can make a practical and long-lasting difference to women’s lives.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises the significant contribution that women make to Scotland’s economy; agrees that there is a potential economic impact from enabling more women into the labour market and that implementing the Scottish Government’s commitment to a universal childcare system as outlined in Scotland’s Future, Your Guide to an Independent Scotland, would significantly help raise women’s participation; recognises the commitment of the Scottish Government now and in an independent Scotland to increasing women’s representation in public and corporate life; further notes that the Scottish Government remains committed to tackling all of the barriers faced by women that prevent their full participation in the labour market; notes the progress made since the Women’s Employment Summit, which was held on 12 September 2012, and recognises the contribution of the STUC and other partners to that progress.
14:46
I welcome the opportunity to debate women and work. I commend the ministers who have signed the motion for coming together to address the issue as women—I say that as much to Aileen Campbell as to Angela Constance and Shona Robison. When they do that, it is powerful. However, their mission and their motion lack a degree of ambition. Today, I will outline why Labour would be much bolder and why we will continue to push the Government on the issue. I will talk about the role of women in the economy more generally and I will touch on childcare.
However, let me start with the Government’s motion. It says:
“there is a potential economic impact from enabling more women into the labour market”.
“A potential”—why so timid? I have shared platforms with Angela Constance and Shona Robison to discuss women and their role in society. I know that they are both self-defined feminists who are committed to the cause. I want them to get angry and demand equality. I want them to talk about the patriarchy in a way that is not defined by borders or the constitution and to state without doubt or hesitation that our economy is weakened because women are just not equal players in it. That is why the Labour amendment leads with an aspiration for full gender equality.
The Government’s motion also refers to the white paper on independence. I can assure the ministers that I have read it thoroughly. It has 170,000 words, but women get only 39 of them. There is no mention of occupational segregation, equal pay, flexible working or low pay, and the words “gender equality” appear only in connection with our international development responsibilities. If independence is key, where is the compelling vision for a more equal and just nation for women? If we follow the logic that an independent Scotland would have a written constitution that enshrines rights, why is there no mention of women? The Government tells us that social rights to a free education and prescription charges can be enshrined, but there is silence when it comes to a political and economic right to gender equality. We are promised “Dr Who” and our own Eurovision entry, but not equal rights as women. The white paper lacks an ambition that is grounded first and foremost in equality and, so far, it has failed to capture women’s imagination.
I do not doubt for a minute Kezia Dugdale’s commitment on the matter, and I have debated it with her on a number of occasions. Given her beliefs on equality and her criticisms of the white paper, why does Labour oppose having powers on equality here in Scotland? Why will Labour not support the devolution of equality legislation to this Parliament?
I do not support that, because I believe in the United Kingdom and I believe in raising the rights and opportunities of women across the United Kingdom. I care about the economic outlook of women in Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle in equal terms, and I care about the lives of the children in those cities in equal terms. They face the same poverty every single day, and women’s employment is the key to accessing a way out of that poverty. That is why we are here to talk about the issue today.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I want to move on and develop that point about the role of women in the economy.
We are coming out of a recession and going back into economic growth. It is more important than ever that women play an equal part in that economic growth. That is why I ask the Government to be more ambitious in what it says about the jobs of the future and women’s ability to access them. We previously discussed the issue when we talked about the Wood commission report in the chamber. I will cite again some of the statistics that we used in that debate.
The number of awards for STEM subjects in further education in Scotland is falling—it has gone from 43,000 in 2008 to 30,000 in 2011-12—so fewer STEM subjects are being studied in our colleges. In the gender breakdown, the figure for women is falling, too. In 2008, 33 per cent of those who studied STEM subjects were women, whereas that is now down to 25 per cent. Not only are fewer STEM awards being made in our colleges but fewer women are studying STEM subjects.
The same principle applies to our modern apprenticeship framework. As the Minister for Youth Employment said, the number of women who are accessing the frameworks has increased, but the increase is in administration, retail and hospitality, and it tends to be at level 2. Women are not breaking into the technical modern apprenticeships—the level 4s—which take a substantial time to undertake. In 2008, 2.1 per cent of those who studied engineering were women; now, the figure is 2.6 per cent. Progress of less than half a percentage point has been made under the Government that we face today.
The issue does not stop at modern apprenticeships. In today’s programme for international student assessment—PISA—statistics for Scotland, boys outperform girls at a rate of seven to one in STEM subjects; they are seven points higher, whereas the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average is one point. Why are women still failing to succeed in studying science subjects in Scotland? We need to do something about that.
That is why Jenny Marra and I wrote to Mike Russell on 7 October. We said:
“the Wood Commission report recommends that ... Modern Apprenticeships should be ring-fenced for STEM subjects.”
We asked for gender quotas to be applied to the ring-fenced places, to ring fence 50 per cent of the opportunities for women. We wrote on 7 October, but we have still not heard from him. How can we have a reasoned and honest debate if ministers will not reply to our letters? The point that we made has not been addressed today.
I wrote to the member’s party leader, Johann Lamont, to ask for discussions about gender equality, but I am afraid that I still await a reply. It cuts both ways. I am about to write to Jackie Baillie in the same vein, and I hope that the Labour leadership will sit down to talk about areas of consensus.
The rebuttal is a blame game instead of showing keenness to address the reality. I will pick up that point if Shona Robison will ensure that Mike Russell replies to my letter. Come on—let us have a reasoned debate; this is not school. We are trying to bring issues to the chamber.
I referred to the jobs of the future, but we need to think about women’s place in society now and the worth that we as a society place on the jobs that they currently do. Increasingly, women do low-paid, part-time jobs. Where is the ambition to challenge the status of some of the jobs that women do in society? What about caring jobs? What about the people who look after our grannies, granddads and kids? Why are we not talking about increasing their qualifications?
The Government is cutting the modern apprenticeship frameworks for childcare and for health and social care. Women have fewer opportunities than before to develop their skills beyond level 2. That is the reality of what the Government is doing and it needs to be addressed.
Six years ago, in 2007, Labour talked about increasing the skills of the childcare workforce. Another promise that was made six years ago was on childcare. The Scottish National Party’s commitment to 600 hours of childcare provision is now six years old.
You should draw to a close and move your amendment.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, the Labour Party believes firmly that we will get gender equality only when we put the lived experiences of women front and centre in the debate about our future. When the debate starts with the constitution, it ends in a bad place for women. That is why I move the amendment.
I move amendment S4M-08462.1, to leave out from “agrees that” to end and insert:
“aspires to full gender equality; believes in a United Kingdom where women can play a fulfilling and equal part in realising economic growth and creating a more social, just, fair and decent society; further believes that the barriers to women’s participation include, but are not exclusive to, the lack of affordable, flexible childcare and that, among other issues, caring responsibilities, low pay and equal pay and tackling occupational segregation are just as important, and believes that progress will only be made when the debate is centred on the real, lived experience of women, not the constitution.”
14:53
Today does not feel like a day for politics after the motion of condolence, but the work goes on. I am pleased to speak in what seems to be becoming an annual debate on women’s participation in the workforce.
In the motion, the Scottish Government refers to proposals in its white paper on childcare and increasing women’s representation in public and corporate life. However, as Kezia Dugdale said, most of the barriers that prevent women’s full participation in the labour market can be addressed with the powers that the Scottish Parliament currently holds, just as we have all agreed to the increase in nursery provision to 600 hours a year in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill, which is going through the Parliament.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
A recent labour force survey shows that professional occupations including teaching do well; they are 50 per cent female. In that respect, I commend the many excellent female principals of our further education colleges, some of whom gave evidence to the Public Audit Committee recently. They made their points very clear indeed.
However, only 36 per cent of women are in managing director and senior official jobs. In skilled trades, 7 per cent are female and 90 per cent are male. In caring, leisure and service occupations, 82 per cent are female and 18 per cent are male. In sales and customer service occupations, two thirds are female and one third are male. On top of that, across Scotland in 2012 the average hourly pay for a male was 14 per cent higher than the average for females.
I welcome the fact that the minister is asking officials to look at opportunities for women, but the SNP has been in power for almost seven years. I will take up Kezia Dugdale’s point: the commitment for 50 per cent more childcare was in the Scottish National Party’s 2007 manifesto. There is no reason to blame Westminster—that commitment could have been met years ago. The manifesto said that the additional childcare would be phased in, but we did not expect to wait seven years for the phasing in to begin.
When the SNP came to power, the figure for total student enrolments in the college sector was almost 275,000. Last year it was 170,000—a fall of 104,000 in recent years. As Kezia Dugdale said, 70,000 of those students were female.
Apprenticeships are highly gendered. As I said in my intervention to the minister, the average spend per male apprentice is 53 per cent higher than the average spend per female. Females make up 53 per cent and males make up 47 per cent of level 2 apprenticeships, but of those who start the higher level 3 apprenticeships, 64 per cent are male and 36 per cent are female: for every two male apprentices in level 3’s more thorough and intense training, there is one woman.
Last week at the meeting of the cross-party group on Scotland’s universities and colleges, which the minister attended, we heard from Ken Milroy, the regional lead for Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, and Sir Ian Wood, on his proposals, which we all support. I am very pleased to support them. Not only has the total headcount of students on school-college partnership activity fallen from 64,000 to 20,000 over four years, but the funding for those partnerships, which are opportunities for young women to get a taster of professions, trades and training, has fallen by a third.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission research shows gender bias in uptake of certain frameworks in Scotland. Not only is the average spend per male apprentice 53 per cent higher than the average spend per female, but modern apprenticeships that are taken up by men are double the duration of those that are taken up by women. That suggests that men receive far more training in modern apprenticeships.
If females are not getting the opportunity for training that men are getting, it is hardly surprising that we have increasing inequalities throughout life.
We move to the open debate. We are very tight for time.
14:58
I will leave the stats to be battled out on the front rows, but it is of concern that the demarcation of jobs continues to this day. The issue is much more complex than being just one of Government policy or even legislation. There is much more in the culture that stops girls taking science—and I speak as someone who took science and maths at school and got the prize in fifth year. Members are surprised, but then I have many surprises.
I will focus on the Labour amendment, much of which—apart from the obligatory reference to the United Kingdom—is reflected in what Scottish Government policy is now and will be in the future. I do not know why Kezia Dugdale’s amendment says that the Government debate should be
“centred on the real, lived experience of women, not the constitution.”
I was not aware that the constitution was some kind of pure, self-contained, detached concept that has nothing to do with political change. That is not what it is all about; it is not self-determination for its own sake.
Will the member give way?
I have only four minutes—I am sorry.
The constitution is a means to an end, and the end is to deliver the kind of society to which I think both Kezia Dugdale and I aspire. We want a society that frees up women so that—to use that exhausted phrase—they can reach their potential.
While I recognise the Scottish Government’s march to universal childcare, post independence I would want to see support, through a tax system or care allowance, for a woman or man who wishes to stay at home to be a full-time parent or carer for their children until, say, the children reach nursery school age. I would like to see that balance.
I speak as a real, live woman—sometimes too real and too live for some. I have had three professional careers: as a secondary teacher, as a lawyer and now as a politician. I have two degrees, two sons and a divorce. I have had a busy life. However, I was lucky. My father had four daughters and a son, and he made it plain that we should all have opportunities. At the time, girls left school at 15 and aspired—at least on a working-class estate—to do nothing higher than become a clerk or a secretary. I was the first to get to stay on past 15 and I was the first to go to university. Decades on, it is very disappointing that there are glass ceilings that are not only not broken but not even chipped.
Kezia Dugdale’s solution is to await a Labour Government riding on a white horse to rescue us all from the baddie Tories—real or in Lib Dem clothes. I am not sure whether Mr Miliband would be that white knight but, even if he was, that argument does not bear the scrutiny of history.
The trouble with me is that I have been around for a long time. I had eight years of Labour in power here with the Liberal Democrats and decades of Labour Governments at Westminster and I am underwhelmed by what they achieved. The rich got richer and the poor—mostly women—got poorer.
Through the deft financial management of Brown and Darling, the most recent Labour Government took us to the brink of bankruptcy. The continuing recession probably hits women more than anyone else because they are in low paid, low valued, often part-time and—to their employers—disposable jobs. Labour, or a coalition of Tories courtesy of the ever-obliging Lib Dems, will not make a jot of difference to Scotland’s women, even in the unlikely event that England decided to go with good old Ed.
With independence, all the parties in Scotland have a chance to put forward their manifestos and bring forward their policies to provide women with the opportunities that should have been open to them during all the years that I have had those opportunities. That liberation of women in Scotland would, in my view, propel the rest of the UK to imitate it.
15:02
I rise to speak as a very proud member of the Labour Party and to address some of the points that Christine Grahame mentioned.
I am proud that it was a Labour Government that introduced the equal pay act, the national minimum wage and the disability discrimination act, and I am proud of our record on childcare. I take no lessons from those on the SNP benches on that.
I was extremely disappointed to read the Scottish Government’s motion, although I was not surprised in the slightest. The line that stood out for me was:
“notes the progress made since the Women’s Employment Summit, which was held on 12 September 2012”.
The reason for that? The Equal Opportunities Committee recently conducted a report into women and work. We made a number of recommendations on issues such as occupational segregation, flexible working and childcare. We received a response from the Government in relation to those recommendations that fell extremely short of the mark. The curious thing is that, in that response, there is no mention of progress being made since the women’s employment summit in 2012; there is just a simple statement saying that the summit took place.
I welcome the fact that such a summit took place and I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is working with its partner agencies on that important matter, but I do not believe that we should run before we can walk.
The Scottish Government is aware that occupational segregation exists in the modern apprenticeship scheme. I fully recognise that that is an unintended consequence of the scheme. However, the committee stated in its report:
“We remain concerned about occupational segregation in the modern apprenticeship scheme, an issue we raised in our budget report in December 2012. There is a gender imbalance in that women are not making it through levels 3, 4 and 5 of the scheme, an issue on which we seek Scottish Government comment.”
I remind Ms McMahon that, in the Scottish Government’s response to the Equal Opportunities Committee, we agreed with its recommendations. We agreed with the specific recommendation to undertake a marketing campaign looking to target young women and to get more of them into apprenticeships.
Absolutely—I was just getting to that point. However, the minister has still not answered the question about the funding, which has been put to her twice.
I know that the Government has agreed to the awareness-raising campaign, but I would welcome more detail from the minister in her closing speech on how that will be achieved. How will it be run? Who will be targeted? How will they be targeted? How long will the campaign last? How will the Government measure the success of such a campaign? If we are truly to speak of progress in this area, we need action rather than warm words, however agreeable those words might be.
I know that the Scottish Government’s superficial manifesto commitment for universal childcare was set out in the white paper. I have to tell the chamber that that promise has only angered people who are asking for help now. I am currently trying to help a couple who have had problems accessing childcare. That man and his wife both work full time and they are parents to five children aged six, five, three, two and eight months. They know that they will have to pay for their children’s nursery education, but that is not the problem. The couple made a simple request that all their children be placed at the same nursery school, but that request has been turned down repeatedly.
The couple are more than aware of their entitlement; they are aware of what this Parliament has the power to do, so they are confused, upset and angry that this Government has done very little to help them and their situation. Of course, I have told them that, if they vote yes in the referendum, it will all be sorted for them—imagine their delight when I told them that. The couple are aware that the Scottish Government has pledged to extend free statutory early learning childcare for three and four-year-olds to 600 hours per year, but they know that without the crucial word “flexible” being added to that promise it will mean very little to them in reality.
In the Equal Opportunities Committee’s report, we asked the Scottish Government what action it can take and we asked it to outline a timetable for the introduction of a statutory right to childcare, including older children and disabled children. The answer seemed to be that the first steps have to be taken through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. I am extremely disappointed by that response, given that the bill does not mention disabled children at all. It does not make any provision for after-school care either—something that many parents and guardians have problems securing.
The Scottish Government has a moral obligation to do what it has promised. We need the action that is required now, not later.
15:07
It would appear that occupational segregation and inequality have happened since the SNP Government came to power in 2007.
Inequality and occupational segregation have been around for a long time. As Christine Grahame was suggesting, what is needed is a cultural shift. It is not just policies that need to change, and it is not just the Government that can put forward a policy and recommendations. We need to look at what is happening in our education system. We need a cultural shift. Opportunities are there for young women and girls, but perhaps they are not encouraged to take them up.
I come from a very affluent part of Scotland in the north-east. Last week I asked the minister about the provision of more opportunities for women and young girls in the oil and gas sector. The Government cannot force the private sector, but we can ask it to take responsibility.
We can encourage the education departments to start saying to boys and girls through the subjects that they are taking to look forward, to have ambition and to have the aspiration to break through the glass ceiling, which Christine Grahame mentioned.
There are opportunities. In my constituency, the opportunities are taken into the schools: at secondary 2 level, there are modules that the young girls get involved in. They are now aware of the opportunities that are there for them, but they need to be encouraged, not just by the Government or by their teachers but by their parents.
If the Government is not responsible for leading a cultural shift in society, who is?
The member is slightly off the mark. I am not suggesting that Governments are not responsible; I am saying that Governments are there to put down the policies so that the issues are progressed.
We also need the encouragement of our education department and parents to move on the culture. I am very proud that we have made significant progress—more women are in work and more are taking up modern apprenticeship opportunities.
Opportunities are available. For example, I welcome the opportunities through the careerwise initiative. I also congratulate Aberdeen International Airport on its appointment of a woman as its managing director, which follows the appointment of a woman MD at Glasgow Airport. However, those opportunities are too far apart.
Women have the ability, but flexibility in the employment sector is needed. I therefore urge the public, private and third sectors to look at flexibility for our women returning to work. Flexibility does not mean going to the office at 9 o’clock and leaving at 5 pm; flexibility is looking at the needs of the person who is returning to work. That could well mean the flexibility for people to work at home for part of the time. However, connectivity is needed to allow people to work at home in some areas.
I ask the minister, in her summing up, to cover the barriers that exist outwith the opportunities. An infrastructure barrier holds back a lot of women in some of our rural communities and does not allow the level of employment that could exist.
It is right that we say that there is potential for our women, but the issue is one of choice. Women want the choice to return to the employment sector.
15:11
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the issue of women and work.
I have been a woman who works since I was 20 when, following my decision to drop out of medical school, I thought that I would opt for a simpler life and just get a job. However, being a woman who works is seldom simple and I have learned for myself the challenges of balancing the demands of family life with holding down a job, returning to work as a mother of young children, eventually returning to education as a part-time student and getting a degree 20 years after I first went to university.
Now, as a gran who works, I am an essential part of the childcare team and rota that make it possible for my daughter-in-law to have a job. I am therefore fully signed up to Labour’s motion, which highlights the need to focus on the real, lived experience of women.
Too many women are underpaid, underemployed or not employed at all. Sadly, inequality in the workplace and in access to employment is still prevalent in our society. It is too often influenced by cultural factors and by the everyday sexism that often goes unnoticed and the impact of which is often insidious.
The excellent organisation close the gap has highlighted that women are more likely to be clustered in certain occupations, whereas men's involvement in the labour market tends to be more evenly spread across industry. I worked in local government for a long time and I lost count of the times that people whom I met assumed that, being a woman, I was employed as an administrative or clerical worker. Anyone who knows me will understand that I have few skills in those departments. I know that the assumption of what I did as a job was based on gender and not on those people knowing anything about me.
Tackling the gendered clustering in occupations, although not the only solution, would certainly help towards unravelling the complex inequalities women face at work, whether through pay, access to employment and lifelong learning, or access to affordable and appropriate childcare.
Scottish Labour has previously called for the implementation of gender quotas in STEM subjects, and particularly in modern apprenticeships. We know that the Wood commission report has recommended ring fencing modern apprenticeships for STEM subjects, and I hope that Scottish Government takes forward that suggestion.
It is fairly well understood by now that, to properly tackle the occupation segregation that manifests itself in the labour market in later life, the gender stereotyping to which both girls and boys are subject to needs to be challenged from the outset.
The contributing factors towards occupational segregation are many, but the divide that exists along gender lines in modern apprenticeships is starkly illustrated by examining the breakdown by gender of 2012’s modern apprenticeships: the health and social care intake is 87 per cent female compared with engineering at just 2 per cent female.
When we look at how those frameworks are funded—with the spend per person for engineering apprenticeships five times that of health and social care MAs, and the wages that apprentices receive in those sectors also unequal—we can see the financial consequences of such occupational segregation impacting on women before their careers have even begun.
As well as getting more women into non-traditional areas such as engineering, we need business, public sector bodies and educational establishments to work together to tackle the dwindling uptake of young people of STEM subjects across the board.
Colleagues across the chamber will not be surprised to hear that I want to highlight an example from Fife. Janet McCauslin of Fife College is the chair of Fife STEM strategy group, which is working closely with employers and the council across the kingdom to ensure that the 20 per cent of the education and training opportunities that are currently in STEM subjects continues to grow, and that gender segregation is monitored as that work progresses.
Those are welcome measures and, most importantly, they are steps towards change that are being taken now.
Before I call John Mason, I ask out of respect to all members that, if there are essential front-bench conversations that need to take place, they should be carried out at the back of the chamber.
15:15
There is not that much difference between the Government motion and the Opposition amendment when it comes to the fact that there is a problem, there is a need to tackle it and there is no easy solution.
Just yesterday, I visited the new Royal Mail delivery office in my constituency, as other members have been doing. I was somewhat taken aback by just how male-dominated the delivery office is and how few women are in that workforce, although I was assured that the two women who work there are more than holding their own.
As has been mentioned already, the Equal Opportunities Committee produced a report on this topic. It had a strong emphasis on childcare as referred to in the motion, because many witnesses talked about childcare. In fact, Opposition members have emphasised childcare in this chamber and in committees for quite a long time. However, now that the white paper contains the major commitment on childcare, the Opposition’s emphasis seems to have shifted somewhat.
The Government motion talks about
“tackling all of the barriers”
and the amendment talks about barriers, including but “not exclusive to” childcare, so there is no big difference there.
The Equal Opportunities Committee report that was published in June focuses on the three key areas of occupational segregation, flexible working and childcare. Occupational segregation is therefore clearly recognised to be an issue and it has been referred to this afternoon. The tendency is also reflected when it comes to the modern apprenticeship programme, which has largely followed the traditional splits.
The report concludes at paragraph 181:
“schools are clearly an influence at a crucial stage ... although the problem in its entirety could never be resolved solely by schools”.
I was impressed in committee by examples of representatives from the oil and gas sector, to which Dennis Robertson has referred, and especially by women representatives who are going into schools in the north-east of Scotland. However, there appears to be a wider problem with engineering jobs being available but not enough people coming through to take them. Some of the young people who I speak to in Glasgow seem to have had little encouragement from their schools to go in the direction of the jobs. That certainly includes women.
When there has been some success in changing attitudes, it is very encouraging, and we should be positive about it. The committee heard about lawyers and the police having many more women recruits than there used to be, but the problem with those sectors is that not so many women are in the promoted positions. There is a variety of reasons for that and I hope that, over time, women will work their way through, but it will not be automatic and a positive effort will be needed.
The big disagreement between the motion and the amendment is in relation to the constitution. The final line of the Labour amendment seeks to separate
“the real, lived experience of women”
from the constitution. Is that a fair split? Are the two completely separate? Subjects such as the minimum wage and childcare are not, in themselves, constitutional questions—although both could be included in a written constitution—but they could be improved by a better constitutional settlement. Women at work are inextricably linked with the constitution, and anyone who says that they are totally separate is not living in the real world.
The other major problem I have with the amendment comes through the words:
“believes in a United Kingdom ... creating a more social, just, fair and decent society”.
Is that just an assertion or is there any evidence for it? I see a United Kingdom that is one of the most unequal nations in the developed world. I see a United Kingdom in which women are getting a very raw deal. It seems to me that the United Kingdom has failed, and there is very little evidence that things will improve.
You should be drawing to a close.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is closing.
Even if a Labour Government could improve things in one term, it would be turned back by the next Tory Government.
15:20
Speaking as what Christine Grahame might describe as a real-life man, I approach the debate with some trepidation.
Like John Mason, I have been impressed by the agreement that has been reached across many vigorously argued points. Nevertheless, the debate has been an attempt by the Government to trumpet the promises on childcare that were contained in the manifesto that was published last week.
I do not think that I am alone in finding it strange that the flagship policy of that manifesto appears to be in an area of devolved responsibility in which the Government has powers already. The Deputy First Minister’s response to questions about why the policy was not being put into effect now was:
“Because if we did that now the increased revenues from that would flow straight to the UK treasury”.
Therefore, the issue is not about improving outcomes for children and young people or opportunities for women to return to or remain in work.
I accept that the minister’s motion and her generally measured opening remarks go wider than that, but the policy is still hung on the premise of the constitution. Therefore, I agree with Labour’s amendment that progress will be made only when the debate is centred not on the constitution but on the real, lived experiences of women, including Jayne Baxter’s and Christine Grahame’s impressive real, lived experiences.
Kezia Dugdale was also right in forcefully reiterating the need to remove barriers to women playing an equal part in the economy and society in the UK to create a more social, just, fair and decent society. For many of the reasons that Siobhan McMahon gave, I do not accept that that is contingent on breaking up the UK. That is not to say that a great deal of progress does not remain to be made in Scotland and across the UK in apprenticeships, the enterprise gap, the pay gap and representation in a range of spheres such as women in STEM. In all those areas, much more progress is needed.
Let us consider some of the facts. First, 427,000 more women are now in employment—almost 100,000 more in self-employment—than were in employment in 2010, notwithstanding Ms Constance’s remarks about closing the enterprise gap. The creation of jobs must be the most effective way of helping with the cost of living.
Secondly, although low pay is an issue, 1.5 million women have been taken out of paying income tax altogether through the £10,000 personal tax allowance.
Thirdly, more flexibility has been introduced into rules on parental leave, unlocking potential female talent in the labour market and providing a fairer balance between men and women.
Finally, the new single-tier pension is properly recognising the years that have been spent raising children and is much fairer to women, who on average currently receive considerably less state pension than men.
The Government is right in pointing to childcare as one of the ways in which we can unlock that potential. On many occasions, I have welcomed the provisions in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill that extend childcare and early learning for three and four-year-olds. Nevertheless, all the evidence shows that investment before the age of three delivers the biggest returns and that gaps are already opening up that may never be bridged.
Extending early learning and childcare to 40 per cent of two-year-olds from the poorest backgrounds is already benefiting 92,000 two-year-olds south of the border, and the figure will rise to 260,000 by next year.
Will the member give way?
I do not have the time. I am sorry.
The member is in his last minute, I am afraid.
Children are benefiting from that, as are parents, particularly women.
The Scottish Government has the opportunity to act through the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill. It has the powers and can make the choices to deliver the resources. However, that needs political will, not constitutional change. Like Siobhan McMahon, I am not sure that women in Scotland will understand or take kindly to having their needs and those of their children held hostage while Scotland is put on pause for the referendum.
15:24
At the outset, I will set out my reason for taking part in the debate. I am the father of a young daughter and have two young nieces, and I aspire for them to be able to grow up and live in a society in which their opportunities are not determined by their gender. I also recognise the hugely positive economic impact of women being able to participate in the workplace. It is very important that we consider how we can remove barriers to that.
I acknowledge Kezia Dugdale’s personal commitment, but I disagree with the Labour amendment, not in its tenor—John Mason made that point—but in some of its inference. The first part of the amendment talks about childcare and suggests that the Scottish Government does not recognise that childcare is not the only important issue in the context of women and work. I refer Ms Dugdale and other members to the Government’s motion, which talks about
“tackling all of the barriers faced by women that prevent their full participation in the labour market”.
The Government has taken a range of measures to encourage women into the labour market using the powers that it has now, so let us not hear anything about Scotland being “on pause”.
Will Jamie Hepburn take an intervention?
Ordinarily, I would, but I am afraid that I will not, because I do not have much time and I want to make a number of points.
In addition, the sentiment of the amendment seems to lessen the role of childcare. My wife and I have secured excellent childcare, which has enabled her to remain in work. She is hugely helped in that regard by the generous scheme of support that her employer provides, without which she might not have been able to remain in work. My experience underlines the importance of childcare to the debate.
The Equal Opportunities Committee’s report on women and work has been mentioned. It highlighted the importance of childcare.
Will Jamie Hepburn take an intervention?
With respect, my answer is the same as it was to Ms Dugdale.
In conjunction with Save the Children, I hosted an event in the Parliament, to which many parents with young children who were struggling to secure childcare came. Many of them were young women in their late teens or early 20s who were raising a child on their own. They wanted to work or to study, but were struggling to do so. That is why the Scottish Government sees the extension of childcare as being so important. The transformative vision that is set out in the white paper—which has been denigrated by some members—is vital. It will put Scotland in a position that is akin to the situation in the Nordic countries. Let us not forget that in Denmark 79 per cent of mothers with children who are under the age of six work, whereas the UK figure is 59 per cent.
I absolutely understand the point that Siobhan McMahon made about the urgency of the issue and the fact that we need action now, but as well as thinking about the current generation of children, we must think about the future and what it holds for our grandchildren and subsequent generations.
I say to Liam McArthur that we can have all the policy-making leeway that we want, but when it is constrained by factors including the lack of leeway in the policy and budgetary assumptions of the UK Government and by the fact that, in reserved areas, we do not have control over all the resources in the country, which means that we do not have the money to pay for the policy that the Government wants to put in place under devolution, that is the perfect example of devolution being power retained.
In the 30 seconds that I have left, I want to focus on what the amendment says about the constitution not being important. The constitution is important; it is not about changing flags. It is about three things: where power lies, who has it and what they are doing with it. All those things affect the real, lived experience of women and, indeed, men. What we see emanating from south of the border tells me—I think that it should tell every member—that we need the relevant powers to lie in our hands, rather than in the hands of the Government in London, which is damaging the prospects of women.
15:28
The debate provides a timely opportunity to consider the women and work agenda. I say that not just because of the topicality of childcare in last week’s business, but because it has been well over a year since the women’s employment summit of September 2012, which was jointly organised by the Scottish Government and the STUC.
In addition, the Scottish Government recently submitted its response to the Equal Opportunities Committee’s report on women and work. While acknowledging many of the welcome comments in that response, I want also to stress that there are areas in which more could be done with the powers that Parliament already has to address unemployment and underemployment among women, and the inequalities that exist in the labour market.
On occupational segregation, the committee noted many examples of good initiatives that are being undertaken across sectors including education, industry and Government, and heard suggestions about further action that could be taken. In particular, the committee stressed the role that schools could play by bringing industry representatives into education and presenting a more accurate and holistic view of the job opportunities that are out there.
Occupational segregation is manifest in training, too; the committee expressed concern about the gender imbalance in modern apprenticeships. I welcome the commitment that has been given to an awareness-raising campaign to challenge some of the stereotypes and assumptions behind that imbalance. However, it is also important to point out that some committee members felt that the Government could have produced a stronger response.
The committee made some strong recommendations on flexible working. Although ultimately the legislation around flexible working is reserved, the Scottish Government is accountable for its own employment practices, and the wider public sector in Scotland should be accountable for its own practices, as well. The public sector should aim to be a good employer by leading by example and by promoting flexibility for families, and public sector jobs should be subject to a presumption in favour of their being advertised as being suitable for flexible working or for being filled on a part-time basis. Crucially, flexibility in employment should not be code for a reduction in employees’ rights; instead, it should mean a genuine accommodation between employers and their employees.
The committee was also clear that childcare should be viewed as an investment in an infrastructure that supports our children’s futures, not just their parents’ practical needs. As we know, improving maternal employment can reduce child poverty. It is not the whole picture, but it is a big part of it, so we have to create options for parents to help them to achieve a work-life balance that supports employment, brings down poverty and improves their quality of life. In some ways, the prominence of childcare in last week’s debate was welcome, but we must not forget that Parliament has the power to act now, or that the extension of childcare that is provided for in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was first promised well in advance of the 2007 election and is only now being considered in Parliament.
Whatever the outcome of the constitutional debate, I hope that Scotland can move to a position in which transformational childcare becomes a reality, and that we can eradicate the inequalities in the labour market that hold too many women back. We do not need independence to start us on that journey—we just need to show the will and make it happen now.
We now move to the closing speeches. I call Mary Scanlon. Ms Scanlon, you have up to four minutes.
15:31
I had thought that someone would speak about the interesting issue of gender equality in the Parliament. When we compare figures for the 2007 election with those from the election two years ago, we find that in 2007 25.5 per cent of SNP members were women and that, in 2011, the figure went up 0.5 per cent to 26 per cent. To Labour’s credit, 50 per cent of its members were women in 2007; in 2011, the figure stayed pretty much the same at 49 per cent. As for the Conservatives—[Interruption.] Members can laugh if they wish, but these are the facts. Between 2007 and 2011, the figure for the Conservatives went up from 29 to 40 per cent. I think that in sitting here, lecturing the people of Scotland about the public and private sectors, modern apprenticeships and so on, the SNP should look at its own record and what it has done about gender equality.
Will Mary Scanlon give way?
I apologise to Mr Doris, but I have used one minute and have only three left.
Moreover, the number of women SNP councillors fell from 26 per cent in 2007 to 21 per cent in 2012, which is not too good. The figures for Labour stayed pretty much the same, while for the Conservatives the figures rose from 12 per cent to 20 per cent. Those are the facts.
As for the 600 hours of free nursery provision a year, it is fair enough for people across Scotland to think that they will get a total of 1,200 hours of free nursery provision for their child. However, that is not the case, because it all depends on the child’s birthday. Those who were born between September and December will get 200 fewer hours, while those who are born between January and the end of February and who will, as many do, start school at four and a half will get only 800 hours, or 400 fewer.
With regard to the thousands more jobs that there will be in nurseries, I point out that a member of my family works in a nursery. She is quite well qualified—she has her higher national certificate and Scottish vocational qualification—but she would actually earn more filling shelves in Tesco. There is a responsibility on each and every one of us to value the contribution that is made mainly by women in nurseries. It is all very well saying that there will be plenty more jobs, but if the same women worked in Tesco they would find the hours much easier.
I put out a call today that we should value the role of women in childcare. With meeting the requirements of the Care Inspectorate, looking after our children and doing the work that Liam McArthur mentioned with children aged between two and five, their responsibilities are far greater than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
Gosh! My time is nearly up. I got carried away there. My third point is on waiting seven years for the increase. In the short time that I have left, I will say that I share Siobhan McMahon’s acknowledgement of the lack of progress, and that Dennis Robertson made a great speech on opportunities for women. We need to do more in relation to the Wood commission report. I met young women and girls at Inverness College who are studying to become car mechanics and to work in construction, which is giving them a taster before they sign up to an apprenticeship.
Jayne Baxter reminded me that I went to university as a single parent because it was good for the school holidays—I could look after my children. I chose subjects that were taught between 9 and 3 o’clock.
You must close now.
When I graduated, I lectured at what is now the University of Abertay Dundee. For many of us, our careers are based on our childcare and family commitments.
15:36
One of the most significant points in the debate came when Jamie Hepburn described the situation in his home and said that childcare had allowed his wife to go back to work. I do not doubt that he has equal responsibility for childcare in his home, but he did not say that he would consider leaving Bob Doris and Mark McDonald a wee bit lonely on the back benches and give up work himself to take responsibility. That underlines quite—
I point out to Ms Marra and other members that they are not going to get rid of me that easily.
I am delighted to hear it. However, I think that that underlines something about childcare and the women and work debate. We are making a mistake if we badge childcare solely as being a women’s issue. It is a family issue and, more important, it is an economic issue.
I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record what I was going to say to Ms Scanlon. I have not yet been blessed with children, but I have three little nieces—Beth, Emily and Hannah. Gender equality is there for everyone, male or female, and it is important to put it on the record that, in this equality issue, we are all in it together. I want the best for my three little nieces.
I welcome Bob Doris’s statement that he is behind equality—as, I think, we all are. The point that I was trying to make is that childcare, which is mentioned in the Government’s motion and which we have discussed today, is an economic issue. It is about allowing people to get into the workplace and to fulfil their potential.
I would like to address a point that Christine Grahame and John Mason made; I hope that they will let me do that. Both members cast doubt on Labour’s record on equality, which I think was a mistake. I would like to defend my party and talk about some of the initiatives that we have taken. When bold initiatives have been taken on women, equality and women in the workplace, the Labour Party has been in the vanguard.
Will Jenny Marra take an intervention?
I will take Mr Mason after I have addressed this point.
If we look back, it was Barbara Castle who put through the Equal Pay Act 1970 and it was Labour that introduced maternity and paternity rights. Labour introduced the national minimum wage and campaigns hard both here and at Westminster for a living wage. It was Harriet Harman, our deputy leader, who put through the Equality Act 2010, which I believe gives the devolution settlement a lot more powers. Shona Robison is shaking her head, but I draw her attention to sections 153, 143 and 159 of the 2010 act, which I think give her the power to include gender quotas.
In fact, the Equality Act 2010 does not give the UK Government powers over mandatory quotas. They are explicitly ruled out for the UK Government, for us and for everyone else.
I am sure that we will come back to that in a separate debate. That is certainly not my reading of the 2010 act.
Will Jenny Marra give way?
I will give way in a minute.
I think that every member in the chamber would agree that those are five bold pieces of legislation. Mr Mason intoned that they would be overturned by a Tory Government, but none of those five pieces of legislation has ever been overturned in Westminster. I challenge Mr Mason to name me one bold piece of legislation that the SNP Government has over the past six years put through Parliament, and which has enhanced the role of women in work.
The point that I hoped to make and will make is that Labour can do lots of good things at Westminster—as I said in my speech—but they can be undone by the Tories. The advantage of independence would be that good things here could not be undone by them.
I think that Mr Mason heard me cite five pieces of legislation that have not been overturned and which have made an incredible difference to women’s lives and women in the workplace. He failed to answer my challenge to name one piece of legislation that the SNP has put through to improve the position of women in work.
Will Jenny Marra give way?
I challenge John Wilson to do the same.
I will give one example. The national minimum wage has been undermined by both Labour and Conservative Governments by the appointment of business leaders to the post of chair of the Low Pay Commission, which has hindered the rise of the minimum wage in the UK. The Scottish Government has introduced a living wage in the public sector where it can. That is a progressive move that the Government has made.
I doubt the veracity of a lot of Mr Wilson’s intervention. We can check the Official Report later and perhaps come back to it.
Labour increased the national minimum wage in nine out of the 10 years after we introduced it. We are campaigning for a living wage, and we will certainly push for that in the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Bill.
My six minutes are nearly up; they have been taken up mainly by interventions.
The debate has been largely positive, and I hope that we can come back to the topic again soon.
15:42
In the main, speeches have been helpful and insightful. I will deal with a number of points that have been made.
First, I will highlight for Jenny Marra and others some of the very positive things that the Government has done for women. They include support for the living wage, the welfare fund to mitigate the Tories’ welfare reforms, and the raising of childcare hours from the 412 that we inherited to 600, which will start next year. Those are practical policies that have helped women in Scotland.
I turn to some other issues that have been raised, and will go back to a theme that Kezia Dugdale started with. I did not get a response on it that I fully understand, so I will ask again. Labour members say that they want the Scottish Government to take action now to improve the position of women in boards and companies. We are clear that we do not have those equality powers—it is very clear from legislation that we do not—and we say that we want support from across the chamber to gain them to do the things that Labour members say they want to do. However, Labour members then say, “No. We don’t want those powers to come here to the Scottish Parliament; we want them to remain at Westminster.” I just do not get it.
Kezia Dugdale rose—
Can Kezia Dugdale explain?
There is really an issue of trust at the heart of this. We would believe the SNP’s commitment to the issue a great deal more if it were to put gender equality and a commitment to gender quotas in its white paper. All that it has said that it will do is consult. [Interruption.]
One at a time.
Read out the line.
Page 106 of the white paper says:
“The Scottish Government will consult on a target for female representation on company—and public boards—and, if necessary, we will legislate as appropriate.” [Interruption.]
Interventions from sedentary positions are no more welcome now than they have ever been.
Where is the alternative from the Labour Party? There is none. We had nothing on gender quotas in the 13 years in which it was in power in the UK—nothing was done. As far as I am aware, there is no alternative document that Labour members have that says that they are committed to gender equality. We have in the white paper a clear commitment to take forward gender equality, but the members on the Labour benches do not want us to have the necessary powers. I just do not understand why that is.
I will write to Jackie Baillie, as I wrote to Johann Lamont, asking for cross-party support, because when I go to the UK Government—as I have already, with regard to a section 30 order—to ask for those equality powers to come here because of what we want to do, my position is strengthened if I have the support of the Opposition. I do not know why Labour members would not want to support us in that. It puzzles me, and their reluctance to have the powers come to the Scottish Parliament undermines Labour’s claim that it supports gender equality.
Mary Scanlon talked a lot about modern apprenticeships, and said that the spend on modern apprenticeships is different for men and women.
Will Shona Robison give way?
No, I will not, thank you.
Angela Constance answered Mary Scanlon’s question and said that the difference is due to the employed status of modern apprentices, which means that, in many ways, they reflect the occupational segregation in the labour market. As many members have said, the Wood commission made some good recommendations to tackle that, including the work that is being done on STEM subjects.
We have to intervene early and encourage young women to make employment choices that they are not making at the moment.
I welcome that. Not only is 53 per cent more modern apprenticeships funding spent on men, but the apprenticeships are twice as long and the spending by the Government on partnerships between schools and colleges has fallen from £60,000 to £20,000 in the past few years. I am asking for a commitment on that, and I support the Wood commission.
That is why we need more women in higher-level apprenticeships and why we need to get girls to make their employment choices earlier. That is what the Wood commission is all about.
The Government always asks us to come to the chamber with positive ideas. We believe that we have put one forward on quotas for modern apprenticeships in STEM subjects. Is the Government seriously considering that? If not, will the minister at least give us a target for the number of women that the Government wants to be engineers by 2016? Give us something today, please.
As I said earlier, we do not have power over quotas; that power is explicitly ruled out in legislation. However, following consideration of the Wood commission’s recommendations, we will consider how we can encourage more women and girls into those careers.
Siobhan McMahon mentioned the Equal Opportunities Committee’s report. As Angela Constance has already said, the Scottish Government’s response agreed with all the recommendations of the report and agreed to implement them. However, I remind Siobhan McMahon about Labour’s childcare record. We inherited 412 hours a year in 2007. We brought that up to 475 hours and we will deliver 600 hours from 2014. Of course, with the powers over the economic levers, we would go much further, as is outlined in the white paper.
The minister might have missed it, because she was having a conversation at the time, but I asked a number of questions about the awareness-raising campaign. Who will be targeted, how will they be targeted and how will the campaign’s success be measured?
I am sure that Angela Constance will write to Siobhan McMahon with those details, but she has obviously committed to that awareness-raising campaign.
Jayne Baxter made some interesting points, and ended on one that is pertinent, which concerned OPITO and Fife College leading on the energy skills challenge fund and, specifically, targeting women for courses that are due to start in January 2014. A lot of good initiatives are taking place; that is one that she should, rightly, be proud of in her area.
John Mason reminded us that the rhetoric of Opposition sometimes does not match the reality of what was done when that Opposition was in Government. He made those points very well in relation to previous Westminster Governments.
I will end on childcare. This Government is very ambitious for childcare, but it is clear that in order to make the changes that we need in order that we can move towards the level of childcare provision that was set out in last week’s white paper, we will require the revenues from the tax that women who are returning to work would pay as well as the reduced level of welfare payments that they might currently receive, all of which will go to Westminster under the current arrangements. Under independence, that money would stay in the Scottish economy and would be used to help to pay for the phased expansion of childcare that has been outlined. That is real ambition—it is not tinkering at the edges or shifting money around.
I presume that Labour members will tell us where they want to shift money from. Would it come from local government, for which they always want more money? Would it come from the health service, or from colleges, for which they are always calling for more money? Is that £600 million to come out of any of those budgets? It is disingenuous indeed for them to call for that £600 million to be spent when they are calling for money to be spent on all those other budget areas at the same time. The only way we can have that step change in childcare is to have powers over the economy and the powers of independence. I look forward to that happening next year.